Is Chord Scale Theory Crap?

[jakeguit]

I''ve been playing jazz guitar long enough to know my scales and what scales fit to what chord. However, was it true that the bebop cats didn't know scales and they just played arpeggios and enclosure patterns? I don't know how to do this without sounding like an exercise as I'm so used to thinking scale then chord . I was in a lesson and working on a tune and over Dm7b5 I played locrian and I hit an Eb which i guess is an avoid tone on beat 3...right away I got stopped and he questioned what I was doing. How can I start to think the "correct way" I am lost with this...

[cosmic gumbo]

Usually when you play a non-chord tone from the relevant scale on a downbeat, you need to justify or validate it with some type of rhythmic, harmonic, or melodic logic in your phrasing, or it's going to sound like a clam.

[docbop]

Try melodic minor modes, play F Melodic Minor that would be a Locrian #9 on the Dmi7b5.

But also work on making your b9 work too, it all about rhythm.

[monk]

I''ve been playing jazz guitar long enough to know my scales and what scales fit to what chord. However, was it true that the bebop cats didn't know scales and they just played arpeggios and enclosure patterns? I don't know how to do this without sounding like an exercise as I'm so used to thinking scale then chord . I was in a lesson and working on a tune and over Dm7b5 I played locrian and I hit an Eb which i guess is an avoid tone on beat 3...right away I got stopped and he questioned what I was doing. How can I start to think the "correct way" I am lost with this...

This question seems to cycle around frequently. To answer your first question, I don't recall ever reading or hearing that bebop players didn't know anything about scales. However, bebop soloing, which was an outgrowth from swing, was based on arpeggios, chromatic connections and enclosures.

Chord scale theory is a descendent of modal playing which became popular in the late 1950s. The landmark album for modal playing was Kind of Blue in 1959 although Miles Davis had included some modal tunes on his 1958 album Milestones. Bebop originated in the early 1940s nearly two decades before the advent of modal jazz. The bebop musicians would play the head (melody) of the tune and then solo using the chord progression as the basis for their solos. Most of the early bebop tunes were based on earlier pop and swing tunes. These types of tunes are known as tonal music and are different from modal music.

If you always think of Locrian as the correct scale/mode for m7b5, this maybe one of the things causing you problems. The most important thing about a chord in a tonal chord progression is its function. In other words what is it doing? If the m7b5 is functioning as an extension of the V7 as it does in a major key then Locrian would be the logical choice. But if the m7b5 is functioning as the iim7b5 as it would in a minor iim7b5-V7b9 cadence then the better choice would be the second mode of harmonic minor or Locrian#6. This may be why your teacher asked you explain what you were doing.

Bebop predates chord scale music by nearly two decades. The problems you're having may be stemming from trying to make a later concept fit an earlier music. If you listen to Charlie Parker's recordings or look at the solos in the Charlie Parker Omnibook, you'll hear and see that the solos are full of arpeggios. The same holds true of Dizzy Gillespie or any of the bop guitarists, Farlow, Raney or Montgomery.

If, however, using scales is not producing the results you want perhaps you need to seriously look at what the bebop players were actually doing and what they were doing wasn't playing scales.

[bako]

This question seems to cycle around frequently. To answer your first question, I don't recall ever reading or hearing that bebop players didn't know anything about scales. However, bebop soloing, which was an outgrowth from swing, was based on arpeggios, chromatic connections and enclosures.

I agree, the notion that bebop players didn't know scales is just plain wrong.

Although it is logical to assume based on analysis of many solos that the thinking was based on arpeggios, chromatic connections and enclosures, that language and it's use as an approach like modes came later.

In my opinion the "chromatic connections and enclosure usage" was an outgrowth of the early jazz practitioners ornamented melodic approach. As the soloists incorporated more harmonic content into their improvisation this tendency carried over.
I suspect that the players still thought of their solos as melody driven regardless of how many chromatically ornamented arpeggios were used.

If anyone has direct quotes to share from the players commenting on their thinking in the 40's and 50's, that is always more interesting than when we modern people put words in their mouth that they never spoke.
Phil Schaap, are you out there?

[TH]

Holy crap.
Maybe this video isn't any kind of answer but it's one way of looking at chord scales as they relate to one another. Melodic minor (altered) modes as they are related over a progression.
For some, this approach works, but Morten does give you one way to look at it. Judge yourself whether this speaks to you.

David

[monk]

Here's one viewpoint on chord-scales from a well-known source.

"The one beef I have with the "chord scale movement" is that it sort of suggests all seven notes are equally cool, when in fact that's really not the case. There really are usually four notes you want to land on that are the really, really, good ones. Then there are the others you want to get through and some you barely want to touch them. That degree of weight thing is usually not discussed because it is usually presented in the form of modal thinking rather than voice leading. My advice to people is yes, learn the chord scales but also make sure you can solo using just the chord tones. A big chunk of early jazz history was largely improvising using chord tones and improvising around the melody. Those are two valuable entry points."
-Pat Metheny

[monk]

Here's another.

Chord-Tone vs. Chord-Scale Soloing
by Professor Hal Crook
For the past few decades or so, more and more jazz players have been using the chord-scale approach for soloing over chords in progressions. The chord-scale approach is based on the idea that if a chord is diatonic to a scale, then that scale can be used as a source to derive melody on that chord.

Using the chord-scale approach gives improvisers (especially less proficient ones) greater melodic and rhythmic mobility (i.e., they can improvise pitch sequences in eighth notes, triplets, sixteenth notes, etc.). Whereas chord tones must be played in leaps (minor third intervals or wider), a chord scale can be played in steps (major and minor second intervals), and consecutive steps are much easier to play fast and accurately than consecutive leaps. In general, less-experienced players are also familiar with scales and scale patterns than chord arpeggios from practicing technical exercises in method books and, therefore, prefer to use chord scales for improvising.

A chord scale contains not only the tones of the chord to which it is applied, but also the tensions. Therefore, by improvising on a chord using a chord scale, the soloist will almost certainly play some chord tones and some of the more colorful notes (tensions) as well. It is likely that without the help of chord scales, a soloist may not know (i.e., be able to hear) specifically what tensions fit the chord tones appropriately in a particular harmonic context.

So, in a sense, chord scales do the work of and for the ear. They enable an improviser to play active melody lines that not only agree with the chords, but also contain the more colorful melody notes (i.e., notes other than chord tones) that the player may not be able to find or select by ear alone.

However, for beginner and intermediate-level players, the chord-scale approach has a potential downside. Many students begin studying chord scales early in their musical education and attempt to apply the knowledge acquired immediately on their instruments. Unfortunately, this often happens too soon in the student's development as an improviser--before he or she has learned how to shape an appealing improvised melody by ear on a chord or chord progression using only, or mainly, chord tones.

Chord scales can present too much information, or information that cannot be readily processed, controlled, and used musically by the novice improviser. It is much easier to understand chord-scale theory than it is to apply it with musical results in an improvised solo. Improvising on chords with chord scales means that a soloist can play melody notes that he or she does not recognize or cannot identify and control by ear. This can result in wandering, shapeless, directionless, or mechanical-sounding melody lines. Often the lines are played in eighth notes to the exclusion of all other rhythm values, producing undesirable melodic and rhythmic content. Such improvised melodies often tend to outline tonic quality on nontonic functioning chords and vice versa.
Direction changes in the melodic curve are also somewhat less frequent because the rhythms are predominantly eighth notes and are less noticeable because of the predominance of stepwise motion. (Melodic intervals wider than a second or a third are less common if not rare in elementary-level improvised solos using the chord-scale approach.) This produces a consistently linear melodic line that sounds limited or uninteresting because it is not balanced by more angular melodic curves.

It is relevant to point out here that the pioneers of jazz improvisation relied on their listening/hearing skills and their ability to accurately outline basic chord sound to guide their improvising and to create inspired melodies. They did not rely on the mechanics of chord scales. Beginning improvisers should, therefore, first experience how good it sounds and how right it feels to play inside the chords using only the chord tones before experiencing the allure and sophistication of chord scales. Improvising melodies using only chord tones connects the soloist to the song's harmony, giving him or her a feeling of oneness with the music. This is essential before a player can hear how to use chord scales and nonharmonic approach notes effectively.

Ideally, melodic ear training for improvisers should begin with chord-tone soloing and then advance to chord tones with approach notes and/or chord scale soloing.

[djangoles]

It's all crap....just play chromatically and it will sound jazzy!!!

[bako]

Monk,

Those are well presented.

Being born pre internet, I was unfamiliar with the term chord scale theory until relatively recent.

However.....

I was taught to study a familiar collection of scales in detail, that I was told would be relevant to jazz.
The idea of being on any finger and being able to continue in any direction.
To be able to play any key within any 5 frets. Interval and chord scales of 2-7 notes.
To me, there was no separation between chords and scales because the study was integrated.
I consider the voice leading chord cycle studies contained in Mick Goodrick's recent books to be scale practice.

I practiced scale materials against drones which was very helpful in learning the color of each interval in relation to the principal chord of the mode. Still, like anyone in over their head, I played rambling solos that at times would land on unintended notes but I was aware when I would do so and I contend for me that was part of the learning process.
The rambling aspect, I would say has more to do with a lack of coherent rhythmic phrase structure and knowing how to develop an idea. There are many things that I know now about learning music that I would redo, given the chance but I am thankful for knowing some things about the harmonic implications of scales.

What is the best and most efficient study path for someone starting out? As a teacher, working one on one I try to problem solve that question on an individual basis. The basic guiding idea is to strengthen the weakest links.
Quite a challenge to write the prescription for the world at large, I leave that to people much smarter than me.

Ideally, melodic ear training for improvisers should begin with chord-tone soloing and then advance to chord tones with approach notes and/or chord scale soloing.

Sounds like a good plan.

I would say at the beginning maybe even more valuable would be to sing along recorded master improvisors.
Get out and play with people as much as possible and make lots of beautiful mistakes, pay close attention and be ever so slightly smarter tomorrow than today.

[TH]

There are also different approaches to chord scales that have a different textural approach. Allan Holdsworth is a good example of this, also in Mick Goodrick's linearity too. Although it doesn't preclude a chord tone approach, it can be used effectively as a compliment to the toolset.

Check out this crap.

Maybe you like it, maybe not, but in the ever evolving possibilities of 12 notes over a chord structure, I have to say Holdsworth has found a niche.

Wayne Krantz too has found another alternative to that tradition. His work with David Binney utilizes the vocabulary of chord scale harmony/melody with a different rhythmic emphasis than that implied in the swing beat.

David

[Reg]

Chord scale awareness isn't crap...just as arpeggios aren't crap. The only crap is how one might use them.

First... Chord Scale Theory... isn't really a theory, it's a set of guidelines based on traditional Maj/Min Functional Harmony and Common Jazz Practice.

Through examination of jazz tunes, the melodies, chords and the improve, Jazz common practice use of harmonic progressions and their functional relationships we're determined. Not just the notation, the use or the potential tonal possibilities. This led to interrelations between Chords and Scales. (there are usually multiple choices)

The "Function of chords"... in relationship to a.... tonal center.... determines it's structure and corresponding scale.

As Monk mentioned above... Function is what the chord is doing... but also what the chord might do and even more important... why the chord is doing or going where it's going, or might go.

Function is based on tonal guideline. There are more than one set of tonal guidelines, the guidelines are how notes and interval react in relationships. When you combine notes... where they naturally want to go according to those guidelines. Different tonalities change the rolls of notes and intervals... yes it can get complicated.

Anyway from determining chord functions from common jazz practice... a set of guidelines of common scales used as references were designed....Chord Scale Theory. The system used Modal terminology to verbally talk about the scales for ease of discussion.

The guidelines are not designed nor do they imply playing scales or arpeggios... they're simply designed for reference, a different approach to help understand Common Jazz Practice.

Reg

[targuit]

Interesting discussion. I tend to agree with Monk's POV, though I would like to read some authoritative sources on the question of just what the early bebop pioneers were thinking about.

I think Pat Metheny's comment is also relevant as to the weight of certain notes and tensions.

As to the concrete music, I am not the biggest bebop fan, though I love some of Joe Pass' early work, as he could burn with the best. Listening to Holdsworth - ehhh....I tend to get 'ear fatigue' after three minutes. That's just my reaction. I suspect it is the random nature and perhaps the lack of harmonic structure that is the problem for me. Now I know that Holdsworth knows his stuff for sure, but it just isn't my favorite flavor. I think that in terms of commercial appeal, I prefer lyrical work by Metheny to Holdsworth's approach, but again, it's more to my taste which may reflect that of more of the public to which you are playing. It's the same story when I listen to classical music. I know Charles Ives was a fine composer but I can't listen to his music for more than 2 minutes before I want to 'change the channel'.

And I firmly reject the "well, your ears are just not evolved enough" argument. In some ways I think there is also an issue with guitarists wanting to play like sax or horn players. A guitar is different from a horn and in many ways more akin to a multitimbral percussion instrument like the piano. I would rather play in that fashion than all single note runs. Again, just my taste.

[Jimmy blue note]

I can't listen to his music for more than 2 minutes before I want to 'change the channel'.

I feel the same way about my mother in law. My wife too, come to think about it.
I'm with you all the way targut. Just play the right notes. It's music not a noodle factory!

[Jonzo]

Recently I have been working on single string playing, a la Mic Goodrich's method. I started using tetra chord shapes to facilitate the memorization of the modal patterns on each string. It worked.

Are tetra chords essential? Are they crap? They are a tool that was helpful in this particular situation.

There are a lot of different ways to think about musical patterns, and a lot of ways to play poorly.

That said, it is important to try to zero in on the ideas that give you the most bang for your buck, especially at first.

[randalljazz]

Interesting discussion. I tend to agree with Monk's POV, though I would like to read some authoritative sources on the question of just what the early bebop pioneers were thinking about.

.

Thinking in Jazz : The Infinite Art of Improvisation (Chicago Studies in Ethnomusicology Series): Paul F. Berliner: 9780226043814: Amazon.com: Books

[JakeAcci]

As to the concrete music, I am not the biggest bebop fan, though I love some of Joe Pass' early work, as he could burn with the best. Listening to Holdsworth - ehhh....I tend to get 'ear fatigue' after three minutes. That's just my reaction. I suspect it is the random nature and perhaps the lack of harmonic structure that is the problem for me. Now I know that Holdsworth knows his stuff for sure, but it just isn't my favorite flavor. I think that in terms of commercial appeal, I prefer lyrical work by Metheny to Holdsworth's approach, but again, it's more to my taste which may reflect that of more of the public to which you are playing. It's the same story when I listen to classical music. I know Charles Ives was a fine composer but I can't listen to his music for more than 2 minutes before I want to 'change the channel'.

And I firmly reject the "well, your ears are just not evolved enough" argument. In some ways I think there is also an issue with guitarists wanting to play like sax or horn players. A guitar is different from a horn and in many ways more akin to a multitimbral percussion instrument like the piano. I would rather play in that fashion than all single note runs. Again, just my taste.

Targuit, what do your subjective opinions about music you like and don't like have to do with the usefulness of chord-scale theory? We all have preferences, that's not the discussion.

And Holdsworth's music is not "random" and it certainly does not "lack harmonic structure." You may not like it, that's a different issue.

[Guitarzen]

We already had this thread....Go read all 50 pages of it...But in short --- every tool that you can use, USE IT. All high level jazz players use chord scale theory. They also use other things too. The only time someone has a problem with chord scale theory is if they assume that it's meant to be used exclusively, which has never been the case.

[TH]

Before we get too far off topic here, let me get my opinion in too. I don't like snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes. I don't like brown paper packages tied up with string and if I found one, I'd have a bomb squad take it away. These are among my least favourite things. This is MY taste and I have a right for everyone to read about it dag nabbit!

I listen to a lot of Philip Glass and I think Pat Metheny plays way too many "funny" melodies that go all over the place. After 23 seconds I'm done. Jeepers- find the tonic triad and stay put for gosh sake! And this is the truth.
David

( )

[targuit]

Any of you guys play classical guitar? You know...Benjamin Britten's Nocturnal, Frank Martin's Quattre Pieces Breves, Bach's Chaconne? Just wondering about your training and background in functional harmony.

[Spirit59]

Any of you guys play classical guitar? You know...Benjamin Britten's Nocturnal, Frank Martin's Quattre Pieces Breves, Bach's Chaconne? Just wondering about your training and background in functional harmony.

Those pieces.....I wrote them....right after I invented functional harmony, which, of course occurred after my much heralded invention of The Internet....

[targuit]

Not quite addressing the question, spirit59, but I am impressed that you invented the Internet.

So of the Bach pieces you wrote, which one can you actually play??

[TH]

Hold on right there Spirit59. You claim to have invented a lot of things. I think I invented at least some of it, but if you'd like to share credit, we could call it a Two Part Invention. No... I think Johann beat us to it. forget that.
Dr targuit wants to know what you can actually play, and I have to agree with him, if you wrote it and you can't play it, it kind of invalidates your value as a musician, performer and composer. That's why I can't take late Ludwig Van seriously, gosh if he couldn't hear the danged piano, who's to say he even knew what was coming out of it!

As to the manly classical repertoire test, latest on my list was the Brouwer Prelude and Fugue. I wouldn't say it's really functional though, I can't get the thing to mow the lawn for me despite all the moving parts.

Boys Boys Boys, why all this jibber jabber about chord scales and who's music has the biggest weenie? Is somebody trying to avoid sitting down and doing their practicing? C'mon now. 'fess up!

David

[targuit]

Two Part Invention. Like it. That was witty!

I confess I did not invent the Internet, but I do play classical guitar. As I assume Jake may, given that I believe he was showing an interest in transcribing Strauss. The only thing harder would be to listen to the John Stowell instructional video on YT of ways to reinvigorate the jazz iim7 - V7 - I progression, in which he narrates which mode to play on each chord. You might love it...me, I'd rather play. Don't get me wrong - John Stowell must be a phenom. I couldn't do that with a straight face and while playing at the same time. " Dorian -no, now Locrian - and now Lydian..." Something about playing Ab melodic minor over a G7.....

I'm not familiar with Brower's Prelude and Fugue. But I will check hopefully on YT, David! Oh, and I am a physician. Alas! At least for now, though I'm on the fence about getting out. The heavy hand of government in a bankrupt nation can weigh you down. Almost as much apparently as my expressing my opinion on more avant-garde music. And to think we used to enjoy freedom of speech... CST uber alles! (Have you noticed society as a whole is becoming a bit more...authoritarian these days? TSA, Prism, NSA?? Although good use of capital letters...)

[bako]

targuit,

I am not clear what point you are trying to make. I like the multi timbral aspect of guitar as well.
I was unfamiliar with Frank Martin's 4 short pieces, I like it.
Can you tie this back in to the original post topic?

school of youtube research

Chaconne originally written for solo violin

guitar version